FEDERAL FILMS, INC., PETITIONER, VS. POTENCIANO PECSON, JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BULACAN, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

BENGZON, J.:


The Federal Films, Inc., a domestic corporation, seeks to annul the decision
of Hon. Potenciano Pecson in the civil case No. 182 of the court of first
instance of Bulacan wherein the respondents the Santos couple, were the
plaintiffs and said entity, the defendant. Grave abuse of discretion is imputed
to the judge because, according to the petitioner, (a) at the trial he
permitted defendant’s attorney to withdraw without complying with the rules and
immediately allowed plaintiffs to present’ their evidence, (b) he
decided the case without hearing the defendant and (c) he illegally
refused to give due course to defendant’s appeal to the higher courts of the
land.

In their answer the respondents aver that “on the day of the hearing of Civil
Case No. 182 supra, the defendants counsel, Atty. Pedro B. Gonzales,
appeared and informed the trial Court that he was being induced by his client to
apply for postponement on the ground that they did not have transportation
expenses, a fact which he knew to be false and preposterous; that he could not
allow himself to be an instrument in, or an accomplice to such a deliberate
obstruction of justice, and that he was, therefore, withdrawing from the case as
counsel for the defendant; * * * considering the stand of Atty. Gonzales to be
justified and laudable, the trial Court allowed him to withdraw from the case,
and inasmuch as the absence of the defendant was unwarranted and at the same
time it attempted to maliciously delay judicial proceedings, the plaintiffs,
upon their petition in open court, were allowed to present evidence in support
of their complaint; * * * bus fare is only fifty centavos P0.50, per passenger
from Manila to Malolos and it is inconceivable that a corporation or even the
poorest litigant cannot have one peso P1.00 for a round trip ticket. To say the
least, the pretext is altogether unfounded and Atty. Gonzales only complied with
his sworn duty as a lawyer when he refused to be an accomplice to said attempt
to delay court proceedings and frustrate, as a consequence, the ends of
justice”.

Replying to the blocking of defendant’s appeal, respondents assert that the
trial judge’s action was justified, the notice of appeal having been filed out
of time, the motion for new trial not having suspended the running of the period
because, among other things, said motion was a mere “scrap of paper” or was
purely pro-forma. Respondent’s hasten to add in this connection, that the
question of defendant’s right to appeal has already been decided by this Court
in a previous expediente with the same parties, G. R. No. L-2074,
wherein this Court dismissed a petition for mandamus to require the respondent
Judge Pecson to give due course and certify the record on appeal in the
aforesaid civil case No. 162 for substantially the same arguments presently
rehashed or expanded. This dismissal should be conclusive upon this aspect of
the litigation. In G. R. No. L-2074 in March of this year, this Supreme Court
ruled in effect that Judge Pecson had correctly refused to give due course to
the appeal. That ruling is now final and binding upon the parties hereto.

The point concerning the attorney’s withdrawal of appearance;and the
.defendant’s consequent defeat was a matter reviewable on appeal; of course upon
laying the proper foundations. If any error had been committed by the trial
judge, it could have been straightened out by seasonable proceedings for
appellate review. But surely it was no mistake affecting the jurisdiction, nor
such a departure from regular procedure as to call for the remedy of certiorari,
specially where, as in this case, the petition is obviously utilized for the
purpose of securing the revision of a judgment which has become final through
the failure of the interested party to appeal in due time.^[1]

Premises considered, this petition must be declared without merit. It will
therefore be dismissed, with costs against the petitioner.

So ordered.

Paras, Actg. C.J., Feria, Pablo, Perfecto, Briones,
Padilla, and Tuason, JJ., concur.

---

^[1]See Profeta vs. Gutierrez
David, 40 Off. Gaz. (14th Sup.), 152, 156; Government vs. Judge of First
Instance, 49 Phil., 495.